Question: Why is this different than offspring that [the mother] became pregnant and gave birth to them after Pidyon? Above (14a) we consider them like the offspring of Tzvi va'Ayal (totally Chulin)!

Answer: Offspring have Kedushah only due to the mother. Since [the mother] was redeemed, her Kedushah was totally uprooted, and [it is] like Tzvi va'Ayal;

Implied question: There is an Isur of shearing and working with it!

Answer: A small Isur like this does not have power that through it, Kedushah will take effect on the offspring;

Distinction: However, Temurah, Kedushah is in (due to) itself. Since the Torah revealed that it takes effect on a Ba'al Mum Kavu'a, the same applies (it takes effect) after Pidyon, just it is not offered.

Distinction: However, Temurah before Pidyon is offered, and it is better than Vlados before Pidyon, for there is an opinion above (15b) that [the latter] are Ro'eh (graze until they get a Mum).

Support: Rashi connotes like this below, regarding "what is the source of Temuras Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, that it dies?", and Rashi explained e.g. after Pidyon, that he cannot offer it.

Implied question: Why do we need the verse "mi'Ma'alei ha'Gerah" below?

Answer #1: This is for a Lav. We know from reasoning that it is not offered, like Rav Nachman says here.

Support: It says similarly below about five Chata'os [that must die].

Answer #2: We need the verse and the reasoning. If not for the verse, one might have thought that it is not Kadosh at all, like Tzvi va'Ayal, like offspring whose conception and birth were after Pidyon [of the mother];

And if not for the reasoning, one might have thought that it grazes, and "Tamei" of the verse, i.e. he waits until it will be Tamei, i.e. it gets a Mum (and then he eats it without Pidyon), like Rashi explained below (DH li'Temuras);

Rav Amram's question "the owner should eat it when it is blemished!" is a challenge to Rav Nachman's reasoning.

Implied question: We expounded above (6a) that there is something that chews the cud and you may not eat it, e.g. a Tahor born from a Tamei!

Answer #1: There he expounds from the beginning of the verse "Ach Es Zeh Lo Sochlu", and here he expounds the Seifa "Tamei Hu Lachem."

Answer #2: There are two such verses (Vayikra 11:4, Devarim 14:7).

Explanation: The Beraisa means "what is the source for five Chata'os ha'Mesos, and corresponding to them an Asham is Ro'eh?" "Tamei Hu" means that it grazes until it gets a Mum, like Rashi explained.

Explanation (R. Tam): Re'iyah is mid'Rabanan. Because Chachamim enacted Re'iyah, it mentions everywhere that Asham is Ro'eh;

However, the Halachah is that mid'Oraisa, in every case that Chatas dies, Asham is offered for an Olah, like it says in Pesachim (73a) "an Asham that was Nitak (give to a shepherd) for Re'iyah, and he slaughtered it in the Mikdash, it is Kosher for an Olah." There, I explained it.

Explanation (Rashi): He made an opportunity for him to have rights [to collect] in the offspring, and said to him if the [mother] animals will die, you will take the offspring that I was entitled to for my share, and [the mother] will be under my Reshus [with Achrayus] for that money (for which it was assessed).

Support: The Gemara connotes like this, like I explained there. However, the Tosefta teaches "if the mother died, and he established the offspring in place of them" (i.e. this was done only after the mother died).

Explanation #1: In Bava Metzi'a (70b), Rashi explained that he assessed them for coins, and as long as [the receiver] does not give [this amount of coins] to [the investor], they divide the profits.

Implied question: This is a superfluous Mishnah, for [another Mishnah, 68a] taught that one may not appoint a grocer [to buy merchandise and sell it] for half the profits (unless the grocer is paid for his labor, or he receives a greater share of the profit than his share of liability for losses), and all the more so here, that [the receiver] has all Achrayus (liability for loss of the animals given)!

Answer: This was taught here due to the Seifa, that we may receive Tzon Barzel from a Nochri. Until here is from Rashi.

Explanation: The Seifa teaches the Heter of Ribis from a Nochri, like it was taught (70b) "we borrow from them and lend to them with Ribis."

Question (against Rashi): What was the question here "if you think that it is in the Reshus of the owner (investor), why is it Ribis? It increases in the owner's Reshus!"?

What was the question? Even so, it is Ribis mid'Rabanan, for since the receiver has all the Achrayus, it is a loan, and [the investor] gets half the profits as wages for the loan!

Further, it is not Ribis mid'Oraisa, since if there is no profit, [the investor] will not receive any profit as wages for the loan, just like [land taken for] collateral (and the lender eat the Peros) without deducting (their value from the loan), which is Ribis mid'Rabanan.

Explanation #2: It seems that R. Tam's Perush is correct. It is Ribis mid'Oraisa, for he assessed the flock for money, and stipulated about the increase, and accepted to give a fixed amount each year, whether or not there will be any increase. It is full Ribis, i.e. Ribis Ketzutzah;

We can say that therefore [the Seifa] was taught, even though the Reisha taught a grocer, which is Ribis mid'Rabanan, and here it teaches that it is Ribis mid'Oraisa.

Support: The Seifa taught "because it is Ribis", i.e. Ribis mid'Oraisa.

Rebuttal (of Support): However, we find "because it is Ribis" that is Ribis mid'Rabanan, in the Mishnah (Bava Metzi'a 64b) "one who lends to his friend, he may not live in his Chatzer for free, nor rent from him for less [than normal], because it is Ribis";

R. Tam explained (there, DH v'Lo) that it does not discuss Mashkanta, since it did not teach "one who lends based on his Chatzer (the borrower's Chatzer is collateral)."

Also, one may rent [Mashkanta] for less [than normal], just like a field or vineyard, which is permitted through deducting, because sometimes there is no increase at all. Also regarding a house (there is no guarantee of revenue, for sometimes) there are cracks and it falls, or it burns down.

Explanation (R. Tam): He lent him an absolute loan, and not on his Chatzer. This is not Ribis mid'Oraisa, for he does not lend to him or rent to him for less for the sake of Ribis, and he [merely] pardons (him from paying full rental).

Also according to Rashi, granted, "he may not live in his Chatzer for free" is Ribis mid'Oraisa, just like Batei Ir Chomah (one who sells a house in a walled city. He may not redeem it within one year for the price paid. It is as if the buyer lived in it for free in exchange for lending money) is Ribis mid'Oraisa. However, renting for less, presumably, it is not mid'Oraisa.

Conclusion: However, "because it is Ribis" here is mid'Oraisa. If not, what is the Chidush?

Support: The Yerushalmi connotes like R. Tam. It says "what is Tzon Barzel? If one had 100 animals, and said "they are upon you for 100 gold Dinarim, and the offspring, milk and shearings are yours, and if they die you are liable in Achrayus, and you will pay me a Sela of yours for each one at the end, it is forbidden";

Inference: This explicitly connotes that he assessed the profit and the principal.

If not for the Mishnah of Ribis, the Mishnah here would not be difficult, why they are exempt from Bechorah, for they are properly considered in the Reshus of the Nochri, since if he does not give coins, [the investor] will take the animal, and if he does not find the animal (mother), he will take the child, for he has a lien on all of it due to the principal;

However, since it is considered Ribis mid'Oraisa, it is difficult, for if so [the animals] totally left the owner's Reshus, like any other loan.

Explanation: Rava concludes that it is exempt from Bechorah, not because it is in the owner's Reshus, rather, because it is considered that the Nochri has a hand in it, like he explains.

Question: Why is this different than an animal of Arnona (the king takes a tithe of animals), which is obligated in Bechorah, according to the first version of Rava in Pesachim (6a), when the Yisrael can dispel him through coins [and keep his animals]? Also here, if [the receiver] gives coins, [the investor] will not take the child!

Answer: There, the animal is primarily the Yisrael's from the beginning, just there is a lien on it for Arnona. Since it is possible to dispel him through coins, it did not leave the Yisrael's Reshus, and it is not considered that that the Nochri has a hand in it;

However, here from the beginning it is the Nochri's. As long as the Nochri has this right, that if [the Yisrael] does not give coins, he will take the animal, it did not leave the Nochri's Reshus, and it is called that the Nochri has a hand in it, for his hand was not totally removed.

Question: Below he challenges Rav Yehudah from our Mishnah, which taught "one who receives Tzon Barzel from a Nochri, the Vlados are exempt from Bechorah, and Vladei Vlados are obligated";

It answers "say that they and their Vlados are exempt." I.e. "they", i.e. the Vlados of the Tzon Barzel, and Vladoseihen, i.e. they and the Vladei Vlados are exempt from giving their [firstborn] sons to the Kohen, which are the fourth generation from the Tzon Barzel.

Implied question: It did not teach "they" in our Mishnah!

Answer: We must say that it is obvious to him that Vlados of Tzon Barzel are like Tzon Barzel themselves, and the Mishnah does not need to teach it;

Question: If so, also here, why doesn't he explain so, that when the mothers died and he established the Vlados in place of their mothers, the Vlados themselves become Tzon Barzel, and when it teaches that Vladei Vlados are exempt, this is Vlad Vladei Vlados!

We will explain "Hen", i.e. Vladei Vlados, and Vladoseihen, i.e. Vlad Vladei Vladoseihen are exempt. If he did not establish [the Vlados in place of their mothers], they would be obligated!

Answer #1: This is why Rashi explained in our Mishnah that "he established" is not precisely that the mothers died and he established the Vlados in place of them. Rather, he made an opportunity for the Nochri, that if the mothers will die, the Vlados will be in place of them.

Answer #2: Even if you will say that it discusses when the mothers died, like the Tosefta connotes, this is not total Ha'amadah (establishing Vlados in place of the mothers), for he did not do any Kinyan. Rather, through mere words he persuaded him that he can rely on them (that he will collect from the Vlados).